Any destruction of the natural world is a travesty, no matter its human social designation... as if modern human society can legitimately claim any right or ability to designate proper use of any part of this planet.

I wonder how many have ever heard of Dr. Beetle. I think his words speak eloquently on this topic: http://allinharmony.org/from_empire_to_ecology/attuning_to_nature

It's not quite right to call this a "Faustian Bargain". The USA is no poor, developing country trying to move out of poverty and is "forced" to destroy its forests! The USA is a country that is responsible for 21% of the worldwide CO2 emissions while having about 4.5% of the global population. (These figures used to be about 25% of the emissions with 4% of the population!).

In fact, more than the current level of emissions, it is the historical or cumulative effect of what countries did that is responsible for the situation we are put in today. From Wikipedia

>>James Hansen notes that in determining responsibility for climate change, the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate is not determined by current emissions, but by accumulated emissions over the lifetime of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. By this measure the U.K. is still the largest single cause of climate change, followed by the U.S. and Germany, even though its current emissions are surpassed by the Peoples Republic of China.<<

Image source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7143567.stm

>>From the article: "This is by and far the dumbest and worst thing they've ever proposed," said Chairman Jim Bensman of the Sierra Club's Shawnee National Forest Committee. "This exchange is clearly a violation of the Endangered Species Act."<<

Why not simply call it criminal?

"Proposals" like this simply could NOT have been made if the USA had ratified the Kyoto Protocol in its first stage and had worked to expand on it during the last 10 years, by bringing all countries on board. What a ratification of the Kyoto Protocol would have done is that it would have set a timetable for the closing down of the coal power plants. Coal-based power plants make up about 45% of the installed electricity generation capacity in the USA, and every kilowatt-hour from a coal power plant is responsible for 1 kg of CO2 on average. So there is no way that this "proposal" could even have been thought up if the USA was signatory to some international treaty to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

It is frustrating to see the utter reluctance of people to understand the original rationale behind the Kyoto Protocol, and to this day, a lot of people seem not to have realized the utter criticality of an international treaty that puts an upper limit on GHG emissions on all countries, so that the total emissions worldwide can be limited and aggressively ramped down. This is the only thing that would force countries to make the right kind of choices for energy technologies and various forms of consumption. Having signed on to a treaty, other policies can be drawn up nationally as to how to stay within this upper limit, which will have to be lowered progressively, until a "safe" level of atmospheric CO2 concentration is reached.

NOT having this upper limit on emissions is like depending on the discipline of the individual drivers to adopt "reasonable" driving habits that do not threaten other people's lives. It seems to fit the national ethos of the USA to prefer this kind of a lawless situation that confers all kinds of "advantages" on this powerful country, whereas an upper limit on emissions may force certain restrictions.

Other countries in Europe willingly accepted these restrictions in 1997 when they signed on to the Kyoto Protocol and consciously recognized and accepted the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities". But the intransigence and the obstructionism of the US in the subsequent years seem to have changed the EU countries to scale down their own efforts and commitments for the current stage, which is precisely the time to be taking even more aggressive actions to cut emissions worldwide.

Without an international treaty that puts an upper limit on GHG emissions, thereby forcing countries to choose a low-carbon emission path, the task of the environmental groups is made that much harder, as they need to be fighting each and every attempt by the corporations to continue with their destructive practices.

In the absence of an international treaty on emissions reduction, the only thing that could have any effect is for a mass awakening to the true implications of every little act of consumption. Drastic reduction in demand for electricity by cutting out ALL non-essential use of energy is the only hope to avoid catastrophic results ahead. So-called "clean energy" will be needed to replace coal burning, but cutting demand, big time, will be needed FIRST. Otherwise any so-called "clean energy" capacity will only become additional capacity and no coal power plants will be shut down and overall consumption will increase. It's like traffic expanding to fill any additional capacity in road space!

The Forest Service does not work for the forests. It was set up to appease the ranching, mining and logging interests--and it has done this very successfully. While our environment, our life support system is increasingly fouled and destroyed, the special interests get what they need. How many Americans even know that our National Forests, BLM and Wilderness lands are devastated by livestock grazing? Do most people know that the #1 reason for western riparian destruction is due to the grazing industry, and that millions of native wildlife are slaughtered every year for this planet-sucking industry? The livestock industry is very powerful and wealthy, and they fight every effort to protect wild places and wildlife--that have a right to be there! The UN Food and Agriculture Report issued a dire warning about livestock grazing worldwide: It is a major contributor to Global Climate Change, and a major user & polluter of the Earth's precious, limited water supplies. There will be no effective means of curbing Global Climate Change or saving decimated wildlife or wild places until we demand an end to Public Lands Grazing in the western U.S. not to mention livestock grazing in general, around the world.

This is just another instance of our government giving away our public lands to monied interests. It is time for the people to stand up, be counted and reshape our Government so that we may yet save our public and wildlands and the creatures that are trying so hard to survive on them.

This news story makes me want to cry, can we please stop destroying the land that we haven't destroyed yet?